Senate Journal of February 19, 1980 .......... Page: 1388
[Point of order:]
Senator Adelman raised the point of order that senate amendment 3 [to Assembly Bill 813] was not germane.
Ruling of the chair [Pres. Risser]:
The Chair ruled that senate amendment 3 is identical to part of senate amendment 1 that the Chair ruled on earlier today and it is the opinion of the Chair that senate amendment 3 would accomplish a different purpose and would alter the nature of the original proposal and therefore the point of order raised by Senator Adelman is well taken.
Senate Journal of January 25, 1980 .......... Page: 1190
[Point of order:]
Senator Murphy raised the point of order that senate amendment 1 to senate substitute amendment 4 to Assembly Bill 77 [relating to prohibiting possession of a dangerous weapon by a convicted felon and providing a penalty] was not germane. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] S.Amdt.1 to S.Sub.4 made it a misdemeanor if a firearms dealer failed to send a monthly report to the sheriff of the residence county of every person to whom a gun was sold during the month.
Senate Journal of January 25, 1980 .......... Page: 1192
Ruling of the chair [Pres. Risser]:
350 It is the opinion of the chair that senate amendment 1 created a new concept and new crime. It is substantially different from senate substitute amendment 4; therefore, the chair rules the point of order well taken.
Senate Journal of January 22, 1980 .......... Page: 1124
[Point of order:]
Senator Kleczka raised the point of order that senate amendment 2 to senate substitute amendment 1 [to Assembly Bill 8, relating to battery to persons 62 years of age or older and providing a penalty] was not germane.
[Note:] The bill, and S.Sub.1, were concerned with battery to persons 62 years of age or older.
S.Amdt.2 to S.Sub.1 had the effect of making any battery involving a high probability of great bodily harm a Class E felony.
Having failed in the senate, the same amendment was subsequently offered in the assembly as A.Amdt.2 to S.Sub.1. Speaker Jackamonis agreed with a point of order that the amendment changed the nature of the proposal (A.Jour. 1/23/80, p. 1882).
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Senate Journal of October 30, 1979 .......... Page: 935
[Point of order:]
Senator Swan raised the point of order that senate amendment 2 to Senate Joint Resolution 28 [to amend section 3 of article XI of the constitution, relating to Milwaukee city or county indebtedness for a sewage collection or treatment system (first consideration)] was not germane. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of October 31, 1979 .......... Page: 972
Ruling of the chair [Pres. Risser]:
Yesterday, Senator Swan raised the point of order that senate amendment 2 to Senate Joint Resolution 28 was not germane. The question of germaneness is sometimes a close one and any judgment by the Chair could be validly question[ed by the body].
Senate Rule 50 (1) reads in part: "nor should the Senate consider any substitute or amendment which relates to a different subject, is intended to accomplish a different purpose, would require a title essentially different or would totally alter the nature of the original proposal".
In this case it is the Chair's opinion that the purpose of Senate Joint Resolution 28 is to expand the repayment period for indebtedness specifically for cities of the first class and Milwaukee County for the purpose of purchasing, constructing or improving a sewerage collection for treatment system. It is the opinion of the Chair that senate amendment 2 is intended to accomplish a different purpose and therefore the point of order is well taken.
1 9 7 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 7, 1978 .......... Page: 3393
Point of order:
351 Representative Schneider rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 321 was not germane under Assembly Rule 50 (3) (e) and (f) because it negated the effect of senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 321 and expanded the scope of the bill by adding the word "severely". The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of March 8, 1978 .......... Page: 3450
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Schneider on Tuesday, March 7 that assembly amendment 1 to senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 321 was not germane. The complete text of the speaker's ruling will be printed at a later date.
Assembly Journal of March 28, 1978 .......... Page: 4046
Point of Order Relating to Senate Amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 321
On March 7, 1978 the Representative from the 93rd Assembly District, Representative Schneider, raised the point of order that, under Assembly Rule 50, Assembly Amendment 1 to Senate Amendment 1 to 1977 Assembly Bill 321 is not germane and, thus, is not properly before the Assembly. In support of this point of order Representative Schneider pointed out that:
(1) under Assembly Rule 50 (3) (e) "an amendment which negates the effect of another amendment previously adopted" is not germane; and (2) under Assembly Rule 50 (3) (f) "an amendment which substantially expands the scope of the proposal" is also not germane. The Chair took the point of order under advisement.
Background
Assembly Bill 321 would prohibit the expenditure of state and local government funds on abortions except for: (1) those abortions which are medically determined to be needed either to save the lives of the women involved or to protect them from grave physiological injuries; and (2) those abortions performed to terminate pregnancies caused by rape or incest. Senate Amendment 1 eliminates the "grave physiological injury" exception to this general funding prohibition. Assembly Amendment 1 to Senate Amendment 1, on the other hand, would amend the Senate Amendment to create a new exception for abortions performed to prevent "severe physiological injury." (Emphasis added.) Assembly Rule 50 entitled "Germaneness of Amendments" is the principal rule governing the admissability of amendments in this house. Because the rule contains a good deal of broad, general and even somewhat conflicting language, the Chair is repeatedly called upon to interpret the rule's application to specific amendments. In determining the meaning of any rule, the Chair has attempted to favor the simplest construction consistent with the language of the rule and its apparent intent, the language and intent of other related rules, the general status and purposes of the body of rules of which the rule under question is a part, and the general powers and responsibilities which have been given to this house. The case in point is no exception.
Findings
352 As Assembly Rule 94 points out, the Wisconsin Constitution grants to each house of the Legislature the power to establish its own rules of procedure. It follows, then, that assembly rules can only, and are intended to only, govern the proceedings of this house. Applying this principle to Assembly Rule 50, it further follows that this rule is intended to govern only the admissability of Assembly amendments to proposals under consideration in the Assembly. This conclusion about the scope of the rule's applicability is also suggested by language found in the rule itself. Section (2) of the rule states that questions
of germaneness raised under this rule "shall apply only to amendments originating in the Assembly ...."
Assembly Rule 50 (3) (e) provides that an amendment is not germane if it "negates the effect of another amendment previously adopted." Since Assembly Rule 50 as a whole is intended to govern only Assembly consideration of Assembly amendments, it seems reasonable to assume that where the rule refers to actions taken on amendments (such as "adoption") it likewise is intended to refer only to Assembly actions on such amendments. To construe this provision of the rule more broadly to prohibit the consideration of any Assembly amendment which would negate the effect of a previously adopted Senate amendment to the same proposal would be to interpret this rule in a way which could significantly restrict the ability of this house to disagree with Senate actions. The Chair can think of no plausible reason for so restricting the Assembly's authority and, for this reason, concludes that no such effect was ever intended. Instead of such a broad, far-reaching construction, the Chair believes the underlying intent of this portion of Assembly Rule 50 is much simpler and the same as that cited in previous rulings on Assembly Rule 50 (3) (c): to prevent the repeated consideration of amendments to a particular proposal which deal with the same issue, once the Assembly has made a conscious decision concerning the issue.
Accordingly, the Chair finds that Assembly Rule 50 (3) (e) is a prohibition only against the consideration of any Assembly amendment which would negate the effect of another previously adopted Assembly amendment to the same proposal. Since the first argument raised by the Representative of the 93rd District is that the Assembly amendment would negate the effect of a Senate amendment, and since there is no Assembly amendment that would be negated, the
Chair further finds that this argument in support of the point of order is not well taken.
The second argument made by the Representative from the 93rd District is that Assembly Amendment 1 to Senate Amendment 1 would significantly expand the scope of the proposal and, thus, is not germane under Assembly Rule 50 (3) (f). According to Assembly Rule 97 (61), the term "proposal" is a general term which refers to any proposition put before the Assembly for a determination. Since the only matter concerning Assembly Bill 321 which is presently before this house for a determination is Senate Amendment 1, in the opinion of the Chair, it is this amendment, not the bill itself, which must be viewed as the "proposal" contemplated by Assembly Rule 50. The question to be resolved, then, is whether or not Assembly Amendment 1 expands the scope of Senate Amendment 1. Because the Assembly and Senate Amendments clearly deal with the same subject matter, the Chair finds that the Assembly amendment does not expand the scope of the proposal before this house.
While not pointed out by the Representative from the 93rd, Rule 50 also prohibits the Assembly from considering any Assembly amendment "which is intended to accomplish a different purpose than that of the proposal to which it relates ...." The purpose of the proposal before us (Senate Amendment 1) is to delete certain language from Assembly Bill 321. The purpose of Assembly Amendment 1 to Senate Amendment 1 is to insert language in that proposal which is very similar to the language it would otherwise delete from the Assembly Bill. Consequently, in the opinion of the Chair, the intent of the Assembly amendment is to accomplish a purpose considerably different from the purpose of the proposal to which it relates. For this reason, albeit somewhat different than either of the arguments raised by the Representative of the 93rd District, the Chair rules well taken the point of order that Assembly Amendment 1 to Senate Amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 321 is not germane.
Assembly Rule 50 (Germaneness of Amendments) applies only to Assembly amendments to proposals before the Assembly; A.R. 50 (3) (e) only prohibits an Assembly amendment which negates the effect of a previously adopted Assembly amendment to the same proposal; in the case of an Assembly Bill amended and returned by the Senate, "proposal" in Assembly Rule 50 means the Senate amendment or amendments.
1 9 7 7 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of September 20, 1977 .......... Page: 1188
[Point of order:]
Senator Peloquin raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 1 [to Senate Bill 4, relating to allowing coupons to be redeemed by other manufacturers] was not germane. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of September 27, 1977 .......... Page: 1245
On Tuesday, September 20, 1977, Senator Peloquin raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 4 was not germane. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate rule 50 (1) specifically states that "...any substitute or amendment which .... is intended to accomplish a different purpose .... or would totally alter the nature of the original proposal..." is nongermane.
The main purpose of Senate Bill 4 is to allow "cross-couponing" between manufacturers, that is, it would allow coupons issued with merchandise packed by one manufacturer to be redeemed by another manufacturer.
The purpose of senate substitute amendment 1, on the other hand, is to allow coupons, trading stamps or any similar device to be issued by anyone, with the wholesale of retail sale of any goods or merchandise, and redeemable by anyone including redemption centers for cash or merchandise.
These opinions [options] were neither intended nor contemplated by the authors of the original bill. Because the provision of senate substitute amendment 1 would accomplish a totally different purpose and would totally alter the nature of the original proposal, it is the opinion of the chair that senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 4 is not germane and the point of order raised by Senator Peloquin is well taken.
FRED A. RISSER
President pro tempore
Senate Journal of February 17, 1977 .......... Page: 227
[Point of order:]
Senate amendment 1 to Senate Resolution 8 offered by Senator Swan. Senator Bablitch raised the point of order that the amendment was not germane. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of March 29, 1977 .......... Page: 289
354 On Thursday, February 17, 1977, the last day of Floor Period I, Senator Bablitch raised the point of order that senate amendment 1 to Senate Resolution 8 (relating to combining
the standing committees on Natural Resources and on Tourism) was not germane. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate amendment 1 would repeal the Committee on Senate Organization; Senate Resolution 8 would combine the standing committees on Natural Resources and Tourism.
Senate Rule 50 (1) states that the Senate shall not consider any amendment which, "...is intended to accomplish a different purpose, would require a title essentially different or would totally alter the nature of the original proposal."
The title of Senate Resolution 8 clearly limits the purpose of the resolution to "...combining the standing committees on Natural Resources and on Tourism." There is no hint, in either the title or body, that the author intended the resolution to have a wider application, or affect any other Senate Committee.
The purpose of senate amendment 1 is also clear .... to repeal a committee which is not mentioned in the title or body of the original proposal (viz. Senate Organization).
Since the Committee on Senate Organization is never mentioned directly or indirectly in the original proposal, any attempt to abolish that committee via amendment is in direct violation of Senate Rule 50.
Such an attempt "...totally alters the nature of the original proposal" and is therefore not germane, in the opinion of the chair.
Sincerely
FRED A. RISSER
President pro tempore
1 9 7 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of May 6, 1975 .......... Page: 755
Point of order:
Representative Thompson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 152 was not germane under Assembly Rule 55. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of May 6, 1975 .......... Page: 757
The speaker [Anderson] ruled the point of order raised by Representative Thompson on assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 152 well taken because the amendment would expand the scope of the bill and require a title substantially different.
1 9 7 5 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of June 17, 1976 .......... Page: 2421
[Point of order:]
Senator Risser raised the point of order that senate amendment 4 to senate substitute amendment 1 [to Senate Bill 2, special session] was not germane.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order well taken pursuant to senate rule 50 (1).
Senate Journal of March 11, 1976 .......... Page: 1982
[Point of order:]
355 Senator Berger raised the point of order that senate amendment 1 [to Assembly Bill 137, relating to representation of minority and disadvantaged groups in the
administration of programs affecting them, and granting rule-making power to the secretary of administration] was not germane. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of March 11, 1976 .......... Page: 1988 Ruling of the chair:
As it relates to senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 137, the chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the amendment not germane pursuant to senate rule 50 (1). Therefore, the point of order raised by Senator Berger was well taken.
Germaneness: negating effect of earlier amendment (not permitted)
1 9 9 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 17, 1992 .......... Page: 977
Point of order:
